Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

It applies to all the elements which are necessary for any and every form of life to exist and be change related back to the original life form over time yet being functional at every stage.Is there one other than carbon that is universally accepted as such?Five stand out as such: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus. I am not aware of others.They are unique and IC thats why they are called elements.

I cannot read Behe's mind as to the full definition of IC, surely more involved than the few examples he gave for certain.The first paragraph you noted actually contains the words Irreducibly Comlpex and so cannot be an alternate definition in any literate sense. It is a restatement of darwins statement of falsification in the current context of IC.Since only one is a definition that which does not contain the words themselves..........well hmmmm

PLease.. again one used the words irreducibly complex and so cannot be a definition of same. Rather a restatement of darwins statement of what would constitute falsification of his theory..Of course there different.. one is Behe's definition.. the other relates a historical statement as to falsification to Beje's definition.Really

Referring to my post called Talking Points I did not say carbon was unique to the proposal at all in fact the other essential to life elements when removed would very likely cause the same effects.That strengthens the hypothesis .. there are five such subsystems which if removed result in utter failure of the life system.. not just one.

Already have just read the original hypothesis and then the other posts showing that darwins falsifiibility statement is satisfied by the removal of carbon atoms from any living system or life form because it is then non-life and cannot be produced from a previous "simpler" version that uses another type of atom and functions just as well, no other atom can substitiute functionally for the carbon atom and achieve life. The life system cannot be achieved by a series of gradations leading up to a carbonless living entity or one in which carbon is not absolutely necessary to life function.Thus the life system is irreducibly complex since it cannot function when its various subsystems are rendered carbonless by removing all carbon from the system.It falsifies darwinian theory using his definition and since it cannot be achieved by any non evolutionary process it is the product of design... ID.

I am debating in terms of evolution from the time of the first form of life until now...darwinism as defined herein to specifically exclude original seedings from aliens.. comets or whatever.. Nothing related to abiogenesis is permitted in discussing evolution .. those are the guidelines very clearly stated by the posters herein.Now if there are 1 to 5 elements that are vital to life carbon in particular, so vital as to make life irreducibly complex in Behe's terminology considering subsystems like carbon items which themselves are irreducubly complex, then that would leave only ID solutions to the issue of life.

Because baryonic matter,if you mean stuff made of protons, electrons, neutrons, would include non-organic, never living forms of matter and that would have nothing to do with the evolution of life.It would even include non-organics which contain carbon atoms but have nothing to do with life.It is not necessary illustrate the falsification of darwins theory by his own definition.

"Origin..."" speaks of organisms (which are made of atomic structured subsystems) which exhibit life functionality being built up by mutation and natural selection from ever simpler forms each of which is alive all the way back to the first lifeform.It is his position that if any such form were shown incapable of being built up by those processes as above then his theory would be falsified.You are now diverting to a red herring, the carbon atom itself, which no one argues is by itself alive in any sense but is a subsystem absolutely necessary to life and of course is dependent on the way it is organized with other matter to achieve that which is functionally life... and not as it appears in many non-organics which have no life.The fact that carbon is in all history of life means that no matter where one steps into the stream my hypothesis stands and is again falsifying prima facia.

I will research the list and see if there are a preponderance of Phds therein, any heads of departments therein and any majkor universities including MIT and Rice represented therein.I'll be back

Is this a forum on the behavior of lawyers or pop philosophy?Hmm I don't think so.. lets stay on point shall we.

Hard to follow such a sentence but.... I am not just taking out one thing at a time until the entity is no longer life.I am saying pick any life form at any point and remove the subsystem ,which will be there, called the carbon atoms... nothing else removed at any point just carbon atoms. You will see utter failure of the system, it will not be made functional by any atomistic substitution at that state or any precursor state defined by evolution as mutation and natural selection, nor will it be able to function at any prior simpler state in a proposed progression in which the carbon atoms are not required nor at the directly previos proposed state which by evolutionary processes results in a functioninf life form not requiring carbon atoms.That is an an IC systwm and since it cannot be developed at any point along the way by evolution it must be the product of design, ID.QED